Right, Rick and JT. Time to start ignoring the troll again. It's amusing, though, that no matter what kind of evidence one tries to present, the troll will somehow try to dodge and make accusations that none of it is valid or even truthful. Yet, very rarely is there anything of substance offered in rebuttal. Sounds like Congress at work.

It's important to remember that there are probably hundreds of other readers out there who quietly watch -- perhaps with at least some amusement -- the squabbles here. I'm sure they are very capable of deciding which comments are valid and which are not. Then, I hope that after they decide, they at least try to contact the decision makers in hopes their voices may be heard whichever side of the debate they support.

"I don't know any Republicans that are anti-wilderness." So, did you mean anti-current wilderness or anti-future wilderness? I tried the suggestion above for a Google search for the terms "Republican politicans opposed to wilderness areas" and didn't have any trouble finding both..but of course you don't "know" them personally, so guess they don't count :-)

JT - Not hair splitting at all. Pure fact that get in the way of those trying to put up strawmen. If one were "anti-Wilderness" they would be call for the elimination of Wilderness which that platform is not doing. And removing land from Federal designation doesn't mean they will necessarily change the land use.

The opposition to "the creation of addional wilderness areas" is not the same as "the oppositon to wilderness."

Ah. ec is into hair-splitting mode. Okay, I'll play along. Opening the provided link to the platform for the Montana Republican party yield the following additional things that party is opposed to - which bring us back to the original subject of the current thread:

"We oppose the federal government ... exercising authority over land use and natural resource decisions in Montana. We oppose any federal special land designations. We urge the Montana Congressional delegation to sunset wilderness study areas. We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer..."

Wilderness is just one example of "federal special land designations," as well as "land use and natural resource decisions." Since neither of us was in the room when the platform was written, feel free to disagree with my interpretation if you wish, but I'm headed out to enjoy some federally-owned public land.:-)

Yes. And accounts of caucuses others have attended. Olene Walker, a former Utah governor has a very interesting story about her caucus experiences. So do many others. Testimony at the legislative committee hearings on the "Count My Vote" effort were filled with descriptions of abuse in caucus meetings. Even Mitt Romney (yes, that Mitt) came out in favor of Count My Vote. But the bill died in committee despite efforts by a large number of representatives to get it through. Why? Because the power core knows they would lose their ability to dictate who will and who won't be on the ballot.

Almost all caucus meetings are held in private homes. There are many accounts of people being turned away because "there is no more room." (Although I've never personally experienced that, it does happen fairly frequently according to others.) Another means of controlling attendance at caucus meetings is for the faithful to show up 30 to 60 minutes early so there may really not be any room left for those who arrive at the advertised time. Some witnesses at the hearings told of being ordered to leave by the caucus host when their opinions clashed with the party commissars' agenda.

Count My Vote was born out of a petition drive a couple of years ago that easily exceeded the Draconian requirements for citizen petitions that was rammed through the legislature several years earlier in an attempt to make such things virtually impossible. Then, the GOP offered a "compromise" in return for the citizen group dropping the petitions. Now the GOP leaders are trying to renege on the "compromise" they engineered.

It's ironic that people who claim to revere the Constitution as Divinely Inspired think it's perfectly okay to deny others their First Amendment rights at those gatherings.

I don't pretend to be an expert on caucus meetings in Colorado and find it ridiculous that someone from Colorado can presume to lecture us about meetings in Utah. But then, I'm not a world renowned expert on EVERYTHING.

Perhaps an attempt at some wry humor? Clearly, there are a lot of Republicans ec hasn't met yet :-) A Google search for the terms "Republican politicans opposed to wilderness areas only got "about 54,900,000 results." Here's a small sample. from Alaska.The official platform for the Montana Republican party says "The Montana Republican Party opposes the creation of any additional wilderness areas."

Are there republicans who are pro-wilderness and pro-public lands? Sure, but it seems the party of Teddy Roosevelt not longer exists in large measure.

As to challenging Lee's descriptions of caucuses in Utah, it's only fair to ask how many of them ec has attended.

In Republican caucus meetings, however, only a very small number of people usually attend and they tend to be the more rabid Tea Party, Black Helicopter, UN hating extremists whose information diets are usually limited to Rush, Glen, Sean and Faux.

And you know this because of all the Republican caucuses you have attended?

The Democratic caucuses in Utah are conducted fairly and politely. Anyone may speak and not be booed or shouted down. In Republican caucus meetings, however, only a very small number of people usually attend and they tend to be the more rabid Tea Party, Black Helicopter, UN hating extremists whose information diets are usually limited to Rush, Glen, Sean and Faux. At Democratic caucus meetings, we find people who are able to actually think for themselves and that, too, may be a disadvantage because there may not be a united front on all issues.

I know a number of people who are Republicans who say they attended a caucus once and will not do it again. I try to convince them that if the experience was a bad one, that is exactly why they need to go back again and again until they manage to change things. But they don't have much hope of that.

There are many more moderate Republicans fully supporting an active effort to change the caucus to a primary election. Among them are a number of former and current state legislators, former Senator Bob Bennett, and a couple of former governors. But bills to that end have been throttled in committees controlled by the power players in the state's loonislature.

Utah is not Colorado. And for that, even ec needs to give fervent thanks.

J Thomas, your post above was excellent. Thank you. The only point I'd suggest might not be completely accurate is the fact that moderate members of both parties feel they have been completely disenfranchised by THE SYSTEM and simply don't even try to participate. The biggest thing we need to do in this state is to try to somehow convince them that if they would just get out and vote, they really could make a big, big difference.

By the way, your point about voting a straight ticket is right on. In Utah, a voter may register as either Republican, Democrat, or Unaffiliated. Of registered Republicans about 80% vote straight tickets. Democrats are down somewhere around 30% and Unaffiliated are lower than that. In the last election when only 28% of eligible voters particpated, over half of that 28% were registered Republicans. It's a shame, but around here the GOP does a better job of getting out the vote. But they use a lot of fear mongering to do it.

And then, there was the gerrymandering . . . . but that's a whole 'nother story.

Not all republicans are anti-wilderness. I don't necessarily buy that, although it seems that the base has a larger contingency of anti-wilderness factions. For example, Mike Simpson in Idaho has for over a decade fought to preserve the White Clouds as wilderness, and in Tennessee both Senator Corker and Alexander have just put a bill in to expand the wilderness in the state.

Republicans in West Virginia have no Respect for Clean Drinking Water, and no Respect for A HIGH ALLEGHENY NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE One Year After Spill That Contaminated Drinking Water, West Virginia Legislature Tries to Roll Back Chemical Regulationshttp://www.highalleghenynp.org/whatishanp.htmlhttp://www.newsweek.com/one-year-after-spill-contaminated-drinking-water-west-virginia-legislature-305975

What you see in your Colorado caucus can't be assumed to be the same in Utah,

So the people in Utah are naturally more abrasive than Colorado? They have an atypical habit of shouting down those they disagree with? I doubt it. We in Colorado may reach different conclusions but I have no reason to believe the those from Utah are any less civil. The issue isn't the existence of caucuses.

who is seens as more appealing to voters on items such as the econonmy, lower taxes, national defense, gun rights, and a host of other issues important to many in Utah.

And those issues typically coincide with the belief in less Federal government and less Federal Government ownership of land. I suspect the polls that Lee is seeing aren't as unbiased in their structure or accurate in their conclusion as Lee would like one to believe.

What you see in your Colorado caucus can't be assumed to be the same in Utah, which as others have, suggested, has a much different culture than Colorado. (Just one example: what are the odds Utah will vote to legalize smoking that noxious green weed?)

As to why people in Utah continue to elect the same politicians who seem to be "anti-public lands," there are - as you know - many factors in voter decisions.

Sadly, some voters will make decisions based stricly on party lines rather than qualifications or even issues - as long as the candidate on their party slate has a pulse, he or she will get their vote. Redrawing of voting district lines by the party in power also has an impact on elections. People tend to vote for the candidate who they preceive can do them the most good - or the least harm - on a wide range of issues most important to the voter. For that reason, incumbents pitch their ability to deliver more pork to the home folks, and that carries weight with voters.

Public lands are apparently an important issue to many people in Utah, but that single point won't tip the vote against a candidate who is seens as more appealing to voters on items such as the econonmy, lower taxes, national defense, gun rights, and a host of other issues important to many in Utah.

As a general rule, I'll offer an opinion that Republican candidates in Utah are seen as stronger on the issues listed above - with the exception of support for public lands. And...this past election, anyone nationwide running on a Democratic ticket, regardless of qualifications, had a major burden to overcome - the current occupant of the White Houjse.

So, if Utah voters continue to elect Mr. Bishops and others of his ilk, it doesn't mean they support his stance on public lands. They have to accept that as part of the overall package, and as long as the anti-federalists can continue to get the votes based on many other issues, they can simply ingnore the public opinion when it comes to public lands.

Well then I guess they must not have particularly strong convictions. The fact is that the poll that counts elects people that want to reduce Federal Land ownership.

Part of it is the system used by the GOP to select candidates through "neighborhood caucuses" where anyone seeking to support a more moderate candidate or issue can expect to be literally shouted down by extremist supporters of the extreme right.

I live in a caucus state and participate in them actively. I have seen nothing like what you describe. Fact is the caucus process allows much more grass roots participation and reduces the impact of back room politics that you so frequently attack. And BTW - the Democrats use "neighborhood caucus" in Utah as well.

Because voter turnout is dismally low in Utah. It's a terribly unfortunate thing because moderate voters feel there is no chance a candidate they choose might have a chance of winning. Part of it is the system used by the GOP to select candidates through "neighborhood caucuses" where anyone seeking to support a more moderate candidate or issue can expect to be literally shouted down by extremist supporters of the extreme right. (Redundency intended.) I know many people who have attended one or two in the past, but say they will never again expose themselves to the abuse they endured.

The national Democratic party seems to have written off any chance of victory for a candidate in Utah and send virtually no money to help. Thus, Donna McAleer had virtually a pauper's chest against tons of out of state anonymous money pouring in to Rob Bishop's coffers.

Even with the hotly contested races in the last election, Utah's overall voter turnout was below 30%. Most of those voters are the more rabid supporters of whichever ideology they subscribe. The only way we will ever have a chance is when the moderate, independent voters in Utah finally have had enough to motivate them to actually go vote.

If that ever happens, Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz, Mia Love and the others will certainly be in for a huge surprise.

Gary's post above is only partly true. Most of us tend to be moderate in our political thinking. But there is pressure in some communities (church "wards") on those who express moderation or opposition to more extreme ideologies. It is true that the Church packs enormous wallop in the state legislature. Witness this last session in which as soon as the Church proposed a law intended to balance rights of certain groups and those of people who may oppose those groups' practices because of religious belief, the legislature jumped right on it. On the other hand, even though the Church has proposed more moderate immigration laws, the legislature has refused to consider them.

It's certainly a mixed, and often confusing bag of political manure in Utah. And it all comes down to money and power. There is a small, wealthy, powerful group of just a relatively few people who control the entire GOP process here. (But, unfortunately, that's just a reflection of what is a growing problem nationally.)

I have a love/hate relationship with Utah. My mother-in-law lived there for some time, and so I spent a considerable amount of time exploring the state. While it's beautiful, and there surely is much public lands to enjoy, "the church" has a stranghold on the states political system almost to the point where the seperation of church and state doesn't exist there. If there is one state where I think there is a theocracy in place, it's Utah. While many mormons i've known are great outdoors people and some of the best skiiers and climbers i've ever known, many of the church's leaders (and they run the state politically system too) seem to loathe anything to do with the federal government, and I think a lot of that hostility stems from the fact that they were basically "booted out" because their version of the magical sky fairy didn't fit the status quo from that time period. So that hostility still exists and is an underlying theme in the states political atmosphere. But, on the same token, a majority of that state is public lands, and so I can understand some of the sentiment.

It's certainly true in Utah where polls show a majority of Utah citizens support public lands of all kinds and oppose efforts by small, but very powerful groups of developers and mineral interests to obtain and exploit them.

Lee, if that is true, why have the majority of Utah citizens not voted out the politicians that support the Feds releasing lands to the state?

Don't forget the Bureau of Land Management--a federal agency--and its plans for "your" public lands. Meanwhile, some states are excellent managers, New York, for example. Where do you think Theodore Roosevelt got his ideas? Unfortunately, Utah is not New York.